N.Manikandan, v. The Superintendent Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.04.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR W.P.(MD)No.7550 of 2018 N.Manikandan ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Superintendent of Police Dindigul District, Dindigul.
3. The Inspector of Police Sempatti Police Station, Dingidul District.
... Respondents Prayer :
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order dated 3.4.2018 passed by the second respondent herein and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to grant permission and protection to perform Dance Programme (Aadal Padal) on 13.04.2018 in the Panguni festival event of "Arulmigu Sri Mariamman, Sri Kalaiamman, Sri Bagavathiamman and Sri Bethanasamy Kovil" situated at Alagarnayakkanpati, Dindigul District. For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Kannappan For Respondents : Mr.Karuppasamy Government Advocate ---
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order dated 03.04.2018 passed by the second respondent herein and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to grant permission and protection to perform Dance Programme (Aadal Padal) on 13.04.2018 in the Panguni festival event of "Arulmigu Sri Mariamman, Sri Kalaiamman, Sri Bagavathiamman and Sri Bethanasamy Kovil" situated at Alagarnayakkanpati, Dindigul District.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.
3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed by the second respondent rejecting to grant permission to conduct Aadal Padal
programme. Challenging the aforesaid order, the petitioner is before this Court by filing this writ petition.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, they have conducted cultural programme in the very same festival and therefore, the reasons stated in the affidavit are not correct and there is no likihood of law and order problem in the said locality.
5. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner's request has been considered and the same has been rightly rejected by the respondent.
6. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions made by both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
7. The learned Government Advocate submitted that there is likelihood of law and order problem in the said locality and that is the reason for rejection to grant permission to conduct Aadal Padal programme and there may be chances for untoward incidents. But for the said submission, no document has been produced by the learned Government Advocate. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the last year, cultual programme was conducted in a peaceful manner.
8. In the light of the rival submissions, without going into the validity of the impugned order, in the interest of justice it is open to the petitioner to give a fresh representation to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ottanchathram today itself. On receipt of the said representation, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ottanchathram shall consider the same on merits and in accordance with and pass an appropriate orders on or before 12.04.2018.
7. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-I) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To, 1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ottanchathram.
3. The Inspector of Police, Sempatti Police Station, Dingidul District.
+1cc to Mr.A.R.Kannappan, Advocate Sr.No.60780 CM VB/SV/MMS/SAR3/12.04.2018/3P/5C W.P.(MD)No.7550 of 2018 11.04.2018